Talk:Skinwalker Ranch

Serious cleanup needed
This article is largely nonsensical and bizarre, I'll admit, but at the very least it could be written better. This whole thing reads like the psychoticmusings of a conspiracy theorist. Could someone please clean it up near the bottom to sound more proper and less X-Filesy? PsychoJosh 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I did an initial run-through the article, and rewrote/tweaked a fair amount. I'm sure it could be improved further though. My apologies if my edits have offended any of the original authors. But to be honest, PsychoJosh is right: it was (still is?) kind of nonsensical and sensationalist, and I'm certain it will get outright deleted if nothing is done. --Careax 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the things is that it is indeed bizarre and may appear unusual (see also this comment on Chupas) but they are the claims made. I apologise if my first draft makes it sound like "the psychotic musings of a conspiracy theorist" - I'm not a conspiracy theorist or (I'd hope) psychotic and most of the witnesses and the authors don't come across as either. What is actually going on is beyond me and would verge into the realms of original research anyway I'm sure. ;) I do keep an eye out for further developments but any that there have been are usually even odder. I actually dropped some folks a line to try and clarify their story but never heard back from them. (Emperor 01:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Hi Emperor. My apologies if my comment was offensive to you: that wasn't the intention. I agree largely about the "nonsensical and bizarre" bit, not necessarily the "psychotic musings" part. :-) Having looked over the source material, I can appreciate the difficulty of writing this article. That is one problem with this specific case: it's really interesting and has enough of a basis to not be dismissed out of hand. But a lot of the evidence that is out there is one-sided. It's very hard to find perspectives of skeptics who have knowledge of this case. But I think those are the sources we (i.e. people who have an interest in this Wikipedia article) need to try to muster. Hopefully, one or two such sources, and some more focused editing, can make this article better. --Careax 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't offended in the least - more amused (and wondering if I can slip it on some kind of buisness card). I totally agree with what you say - after weighing up all the available evidence I find myself sceptical (small S and no k) of a lot of the claims and find the involvement of the NIDS highly suspect. The whole thing smells but what is actually going on is very difficult to pin down. Skinwalker Ranch isn't unique (there are probably half a dozen similar areas of strangeness - as I mention) so you can't really dismiss the whole thing - it is nonsensical and bizarre and things may not be what they appear (as anyone who has watched Scooby Doo will now) but that is the nature of the beast. Then again most of the wilder aspects of this come from tightly controlled sources (it is also noteworthy that the strangest things happen when the investigators aren't around). The problem is the same sources have tight control over the farm and so independent investigation would be tricky and it sounds like the NIDS one was difficult enough. Then again, with them little can be taken on face value. So at the moment those who have concerns about the whole thing (like myself) are rather stuck with beard stroking and shaking of heads and little else. Ultimately this case may say important things about various things which only tangentially touch on the paranormal or it may hang there in limbo for a long time - its impossible to tell. All I've tried to do for now is produce a synthesis of the evidence as presented and keep an eye out for other opinions (although so far any further developments have been further down the strange fork in the road). I think we can consider the entry, like the whole case itself, as a work in progress ;) (Emperor 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Photo?
This might be tricky as the ranch's location is generally regarded as a secret. Best bet might be dropping Paraview a line either via their site or through the Hunt for the Skinwalker site - I'll do this next week. (Emperor 13:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC))


 * There's a photo that claims to be of the ranch on the Alien Dave website. Don't know the legality of using such an image though. Or if this is what you wanted. --Careax 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Alien Dave photos are all thumbnails, essentially useless for Wikipedia. Unless the site owner consents to release color images in to the public domain, at least in VGA format (640x480 pixels), forget it.&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 00:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some photos of the ranch in Steven Rinehart's dispatch, and they aren't copyrighted. Somebody should put them up here.  They are better pictures than others.  He also includes directions to the ranch on his site, and a link to it on Google Earth.  I don't think the article should even say that the location is unknown any longer.  Rinehart seems to clearly reveal the location of the ranch. Rinehart's dispatch is interesting only because it reveals the location of the ranch and has pictures of it that haven't been published before.  The "unidentified footprints" he ascribes to a "large, bipedal creature" are clearly rabbit tracks he misidentified.  At least he didn't make them up, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.126.229 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 14 January 2007

Joke
Is this hole thing a joke?I've never heard anything about this.Even if this is not a joke,this article is POV and needs to be rewritten.Dermo69


 * Know what? I'll bet it is, because there is little if any cited sources, and Wikipedia itself doesn't attempt to explain these "paranormal" activities, only lists some silly arguments, such as a flawed perception of reality, already put forward by nutcakes out there. If you ask me, this and other pages relating to the paranormal need a lot of improvement. BadE 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends on your perspective. I known this specific location is not ficticious, and that the claims made are also not ficticious. And there's enough evidence to support this. Whether the claims are really caused by paranormal or just over-active imaginations, well, that is what's up for debate. As for the article needing improvement BadE, I strongly agree with you. If you have some knowledge of this case and can help improve this article by all means go ahead. --Careax 17:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a joke. I live about 10 minutes from the ranch and know Terry and Gwen Sherman personally.  His name is not Tom Gorman, despite the fact that that's his name in the book written about it.  This article is severely disappointing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.5.87.140 (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite details
I think we all acknowledge that this article needs more work. Right now it's been classified a 'Start'-class. It would be great if it could be elevated to a B-class. With that in mind, I went through the source articles and weeded out some claimed phenomena that I either didn't find reference to or that didn't seem very paranormal. Some of those changes include:
 * The flock of unidentified small red birds: these are unusual for Utah, but not very paranormal.
 * Some of the UFO claims: some of these were discussed more in the context of north east Utah than specifically on Skinwalker ranch.
 * The large aquatic serpents in the nearby Bottle Hollow: Bottle Hollow isn't part of the ranch. This should be included in a separate Wikipedia article.
 * The large Freemasonry symbol carved in inaccessible part of the ranch: again, this is unusual, but not particularly paranormal.
 * Teleportation: these claims seem to be tied to other phenomena, and not separate phenomena.
 * Magnetic anomalies: I don't recall seeing any explicit references to these as phenomena. And even if some were mentioned, again these would be tied to other phenomena.
 * Reptilian humanoids: reptilian eyes are mentioned, but they allegedly belonged to a hairy dog-like creature.

I also broke the content into sections and reduced the much-criticized lists. Feel free to correct specific mistakes or omisions, but please don't just do a blanket revert. --Careax 04:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, more edits: this time to the explanations section. The various points have been turned from a list into paragraphs, and responses to each explanation added. I've also removed the Buffalo soldier explanation. I didn't find mention of a Buffalo soldier graveyard on the ranch property anywhere in the source material. And the fact that the Ute's avoid the property make the idea they built on a graveyard located on Skinwalker Ranch very unlikely. --Careax 04:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edits. I do wodner about removing some things that are strange but not paranormal is a tad restrictive as this can't just be a paranormal entry (even if it falls under the paranormal remit) but one that touches on all the odd aspects of the ranch. (Emperor 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Yeah, now you mention it I see your point. What about renaming "Reported phenomena" to "Paranormal phenomena" and placing it under a new parent section called "Reported activity"? Another child section - "Other unusual sightings" - could also be added there. The red bird sighting and the Masonic/Native American symbol sighting could go there. --Careax 09:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My concern there would be that we are putting our own judgements on the reports. None of it may be paranormal or perhaps the red birds are. I'd suggest putting them all under "reported activity". (Emperor 15:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Fair enough. I've changed a couple of headings (including the one you suggested), and added the birds report back in. I only found reference to "exotic, multicolored birds" on the ranch. There are a lot of different bird species that have been spotted in Utah (including red ones), so I've mentioned and referenced that fact as well. --Careax 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo or map
I don't know what the licenses are for satellite imagery, but I'm pretty sure topographical maps from the USGS are copyright free. It'd be nice to have either a map or a photograph of the actual place included here.--Nealparr 23:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the exact location has been released. I can point to its general location on a map of Utah and local paranormal researchers can probably provide coordinates. (Emperor 22:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC))


 * Steven Rinehart sets out in his dispatch, referenced in the article, directions to the ranch, and has a link to Google Earth showing an aerial view of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.126.229 (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Comment moved from main article
I've moved the following text, added by 70.56.216.253, from the Skinwalker Ranch article to here. If this information is accurate it can be added back with different emphasis. But I don't know how much relevance it has to the ranch itself: whether the Skinwalker term relates to the Ute tribe or Navajo tribe, the property is still referred to as Skinwalker Ranch by non-native American locals.


 * There is incorrect information regarding what tribe mentions skinwalkers in their folklore. It's actually the Diné (Navajo) tribe.  They are called Naagloshi or Maiitso also known as Skinwalkers.

--Careax 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Skinwalker does originate in Navajo legends but has spread to local tribes. According to the sources the Ute believe the presence of the Skinwalker on their land may be due to their slaughtering of the Navajo in the past. If the person who added it has any well referenced information to suggest something different then they can add it back with the source but it sounds like a misunderstanding on their part. (Emperor 14:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

I have included a photo and map on our groups website. I can provide further detailed maps if necessary. www.skinwalkerranch.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.166.132 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
The claim of the Deseret News running a front page story includes no reference. Unreferenced claims of prominent references on such evident fringe articles deserve the "dubious" tag. If you want to get rid of the tag replace it with a reference to the issue in question. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lede claim that the location of the ranch is not publicly confirmed don't mesh with claims that an organization bought said ranch for $200000 in the body. One of those claims is likely wrong.  Thus dubious. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore body claims a talk radio host broadcast directions and a google earth link to the ranch on his program. How much more public can you get.  Again one of these claims is false. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Need to find a reliable independent source for whatever claims the article makes. If the mainstream view is that it's folklore, then we might stub down and revise appropriately. Or if it's mostly UFO/conspiracy, frame it as such, e.g.; "In UFO and conspiracy literature, Skinwalker Ranch is...." - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True. There are major sourcing issues here.  There is also a dirth of poorly referenced or unreferenced, occasionally contradictory claims. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further digging reveals that Skinwalker Ranch was a creation of George Knapp (journalist) that was propagated through his own articles in a now-defunct Las Vegas alternative weekly newspaper and one book. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So would the Knapp sources be non-reliable? They are all I really left in - mainly because they are published books on the topic. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Knapp stuff would be reliable in describing "what Knapp believes" but not much else. When you get done cutting out the truly dubious material, I'll see if I can find ANY reliable source to base at least a stub on. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like maybe this: Utah Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff by Brandon Griggs - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unusual amount of subject matter deletion
the amount of editing to this page is rediculous, its as if the entire topic has been erased. Skinwalker ranch is a piece of american folklore. Rather than building on the page, adding more photos and better coordinates, its as if the page is being systematically deleted for some unknown reason. Activty on the ranch has been more noticable and dramatic lately more so than in the past. More guards have been added as security, and news articles continue to come out regarding the ranch on a regular basis. Rather than providing a definition of the history and unqiue claims of the ranch the current contributions seem to dismiss the ranch entirely by posting a article to Randi's claim of a paranormal waste of money. This itself is an unbased bias statement, moreso than making a claim of paranormal activity which has been documented by newspapers, and several PHD researchers. Please consider revising this entire page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiii98 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cleanup was the result of discussion here: WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_17 and above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=%27robert+bigelow%22+ranch&spell=1 Results 1 - 10 of about 1,400 for 'robert bigelow" ranch. (0.23 seconds

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=%22gilliland+ranch%22&spell=1 Results 1 - 6 of 6 for "gilliland ranch". (0.12 seconds)

I think 1,400 results from google news and a plethora of reliable sources amongst that mix would dictate a higher volume of attention to this specific wikipedia article. Please review the first link for countless new sources on the ranch. The wikipedia article itself for the ranch has a high volume of traffic per day, I assume this is due to the vast amount of media coverage of the ranch, yet this is paradoxically offset by the recent amputation of information on it's wikipedia article. I also included google news results for "gilliland ranch" a similiar "haunted ranch" (to use one editors terms), to demonstrate the dramatic contrast in media attention and public interest in Bigelow's Ranch. Hiii98 (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that this "haunted ranch" meets notability criteria is the reason that the article was not deleted. It was reduced to what could be supported from reliable sources.Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hiii98, you're right; the article briefly reports what reliable sources have said about it, yet "seems to dismiss the ranch entirely." This is per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. Mainstream science (the majority view) has not accepted any evidence to support the existence of UFO-related poltergeists, etc. and favors mundane explanations over "unexplainable mysteries." And since Wikipedia can only mirror the "establishment" view, the claims of Bigelow, Knapp, and other Fortean book authors and journalists are characterized as the fringe view rather than authorities on the subject. Which is why we can only summarize their claims rather than list every gory detail of melted dogs, portals to Hell, etc. Also you may want to read WP:GOOGLEHITS regarding the search engine's use as an indicator of media attention. But, I agree there are a few minor news reports in the archives (Modesto Bee, Deseret News, etc.) and I'll see if I can find any detail in them that's appropriate to add. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for re-examining the matter. There are plenty of hard facts regarding Robert Bigelow's current activities and interest in the Ranch. Also NIDs has been dismantled, however it has been reborn by the much larger entity which boasts even more PHD scientists and ample security guards under the umbrella of B.A.A.S.S. Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS)which now oversees/manages the ranch. http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers/

The personal involved in both BAASS and the origional NIDs committee are not fictional characters, they are actual scientists and military members of significant notoriety, yet left absent from the article. There is no need to dwell in the gory details which cannot be scientifically substantied I agree, however the facts surrounding the players involved and the current status of the ranch i feel hold historical value and media interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiii98 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On a further note, I propose the creation of a seperate unique Wiki article on B.A.A.S.S.


 * "According to the last order by Federal Aviation Administration—issued on December 10— B.A.A.S.S. is now the organization to contact if you are a pilot or an air traffic controller who gets close to an Unidentified Flying Object:


 * Persons wanting to report UFO/unexplained phenomena activity should contact a UFO/ unex­ plained phenomena reporting data collection center, such as Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS)"


 * "NIDS is now defunct and has been replaced by the larger, more capable BAASS," says the FAA. "Therefore, pilot and air traffic control reporting of UFOs in the United States should now go to BAASS, vice NIDS."


 * This would make BAASS the ONLY civilian organization *ever* to have goverment authority to have all F.A.A. ufo reports send directly to BAASS headquarters.  Hiii98 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article exists: Bigelow_Aerospace. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, BAASS as it is self proclaimed, is a seperate identity within Bigelow Aerospace with a completely different objective. There was a wiki article on NIDs, which is now defunct, why not an actual relevant article on more robust and capable BAASS? To me this seems like a logical suggestion LuckyLouie Hiii98 (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should probably take up this issue at Talk:Bigelow_Aerospace as your proposal would link directly to the material there as a business entity within Bigelow Areospace. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * not to drag this out but the current NIDs wiki article is longer than that of the Skinwalker Ranch. No one ever wrote a book or had a documentary on NIDs to my knowledge.  Why would the dismantled NIDs survive on its own yet the very much alive organization of BAASS be forced under the Bigelow Aerospace article? here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Discovery_Science Hiii98 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I suppose you could create an article called "Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies", but you'd have a very hard time justifying that the "Advanced Space Studies" division wasn't related to Bigelow Aerospace and didn't belong on that page. As others have advised, you need very reliable sources, especially for fringe-y stuff. There's also the question of whether such an article would satisfy notability guidelines. In any event, this discussion could use some further input. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested relevant & reliable news sources
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=4275629 L.V. Newspaper Article on the scientific research

http://www.deseretnews.com/cgi-bin/cqcgi_plus/@plus.env?CQ_SESSION_KEY=XTJYEDTBOEFL&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=6&CQ_TEXT_MAIN=YES The original Deseret News Article about the phenomenon at the ranch.

http://www.deseretnews.com/cgi-bin/cqcgi_plus/@plus.env?CQ_SESSION_KEY=XTJYEDTBOEFL&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=4&CQ_TEXT_MAIN=YES A very early article on big Bob Bigelow taking interest in the ranch for scientific purposes.

http://www.deseretnews.com/cgi-bin/cqcgi_plus/@plus.env?CQ_SESSION_KEY=XTJYEDTBOEFL&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=8&CQ_TEXT_MAIN=YES Another article pointing to the scientific approach that d-bag Bigelow was planning on taking into researching the ranch. Article validates the Gorman's claims.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/gazette/access/26317492.html?dids=26317492:26317492&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+22%2C+1996&author=Associated+Press&pub=Colorado+Springs+Gazette&desc=Remote+Utah+ranch+scene+of+scientific+UFO+study&pqatl=google Colorado Springs Gazette - "Remote Utah ranch scene of scientific UFO study"

http://www.deseretnews.com/cgi-bin/cqcgi_plus/@plus.env?CQ_SESSION_KEY=XULXEFYXQEFL&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=1&CQ_TEXT_MAIN=YES A 2006 follow-up article on the scientific research that Bigelow's minions are supposed to be doing at the ranch.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FtgzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VyEGAAAAIBAJ&pg=2879,921603&dq=national-institute-for-discovery-science+utah&hl=en “Lodi News-Sentinel” Reference to the Bigelow purchase and for what reasons.

http://animal.discovery.com/tv/lost-tapes/skinwalker/ Had to throw this one in because they listed disovery.com on their "reputable" sites.

http://www.remoteviewingnv.com/ "Confidential Report: Ranch Activities," unpublished assessment prepared by Dr. Angela Thompson and the Nevada Remote Viewing Group, January 2003.

"Frequent Fliers?", By Zack Van Eyck, The Deseret News, Sunday, June 30, 1996, p. B1.

"Millionaire leads quest for UFO data", By Zack Van Eyck, The Deseret News, Sunday, October 20, 1996, p. B1.

"`Universe' reports on strange Utah Occurrences", By Lezlee E. Whiting, The Deseret News, Thursday, December 12, 1996, p. B12.

"No UFOs or ETs have dropped in at spooky ranch", By Zack Van Eyck, The Deseret News, Sunday, April 27, 1997, p. B1.

"Private UFO study takes a public turn", By Zack Van Eyck, The Deseret News, Monday, August 10, 1998, p. B1.

"Reporter says truth about UFOs is out there - She says E.T. life exists but feds are covering it up", Associated Press, The Deseret News, Monday, November 30, 1998, p. A11.

"Answers actively sought in bizarre cattle mutilations - Patterns are being found — but not explanations", By Lezlee E. Whiting, The Deseret News, Wednesday, July 28, 1999, p. A12. Hiii98 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction requested
The first sentence of the second paragraph of this entry is incorrect. "Claims" about the Sherman Ranch were first published in the Deseret News newspaper of Salt Lake City, Utah on June 30, 1996, in an article by reporter Zack Van Eyck. The Associated Press picked up the story and it was included on national radio news that weekend, which is when the film "Independence Day" was released. The George Knapp articles followed after the initial reports in the Deseret News.

Here is a link to the original article:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/498676/FREQUENT-FLIERS.html Zmanzman1 (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remove Randi's Pigasus Award from this page
The award according to Randi was to Bigelow for funding paranormal research including multiple projects, professors, and locations. Here is the exact excerpt: "•Category #2, to the funding organization that supported the most useless study of a supernatural, paranormal or occult, goes to Robert Bigelow, of the Bigelow Tea family. Mr. Bigelow not only gave large sums of money to Harvard University's Professor John Mack and to million-seller author Bud Hopkins on the strength of their "alien abduction" beliefs, but also purchased (for a purported $230,000) a "haunted ranch" in Utah where UFO attacks and "interdimensional portals" had shown up, in the wake of mysterious "cattle mutilations." "

He does NOT award the award to "Skinwalker Ranch" but rather to Robert Bigelow himself and his organization.

Otherwise we would have to update the wiki files for Robert Bigelows page, Professor John Macks page, and Bud Hopkins page. Randi is not delivering the award on the ranch itself but rather Bigelows foolish expenditure on various paranormal related topics, and individuals.

I ask that you remove the Pigasus Randi mention from this wiki article as it's intentions was to highlight the Bigelow's misguided use of money for paranormal projects.

The most important point I can make is that the criteria for the award itself is "Category #2, to the funding organization that supported the most useless study of a supernatural, paranormal or occult"

Skinwalker Ranch is a location, not a organization, Bigelow Aerospace and NIDs are an organization and any wiki reference to the Pigasus awards should be attributed to them NOT Skinwalker Ranch.

SOURCE: http://www.skeptictank.org/randi.htm "ANNOUNCING THE OFFICIAL 1996 "PIGASUS" AWARDS FROM THE JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiii98 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's clearly relevant to the article, and the edit makes it clear that the award was to Bigelow. I don't see the problem. Doug Weller  talk 17:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"it clear that the award was to Bigelow" Great I'm glad you also agree the award was for Bigelow and not for the ranch. Robert Bigelow has his own Wikipedia page as do the other people mentioned by the award. I recommend removing the award from this topic's page and giving to, "to Bigelow" as you yourself state. Hiii98 (talk


 * Add it there, sure. But it's about his purchase of this ranch, so it belongs here also. Doug Weller  talk 21:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

More on the new owner
See. Jason Colavito has recently had a book on the Moundbuilders published by a university press, he's an rs. Also see. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh jeebus. Inspired by Hal Puthoff? Srsly? Guy (help!) 20:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"In popular culture"
Notwithstanding the default meaning of "in popular culture" on Wikipedia (which is, roughly, fan trivia to be removed as soon as possible), this popular culture section is unusually bad in that it lacks a single reliable independent source to establish the significance of any of the items listed. Ancient Aliens, for example, is excellent comedy but it can't be taken as indicating significance of anything. Guy (help!) 20:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Mention in Popular Mechanics Article
This article mentions a security contractor who said "he indeed encountered some fairly dramatic paranormal events while working at the Skinwalker Ranch", this seems like it could be worth adding under the paranormal reputation section possibly 2601:401:180:E1E0:C5AB:705E:154D:8CBC (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Split section: The Secret Of Skinwalker Ranch
The section currently formatted as an article about the TV show "The Secret Of Skinwalker Ranch" should be split off into its own new article about the TV show, The Secret Of Skinwalker Ranch, obviously. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The TV show article being force-fit into this article should probably be removed as WP:UNDUE. There is already a summary in the pop culture section. The TV show infobox is excessive and the episode summaries are borderline incoherent. I see there is a draft article at Draft:The_Secret_of_Skinwalker_Ranch, so no content would be lost. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ve removed the malformed section. Still trying to get the user who created it to use a Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nested double quotes
The section "Criticism" appears to contain nested double quotes. On closer attention it turns out that the inner quotes are not the same as the outer ones - but they're not different enough. It's confusing and it boggled me for a while. My (limited) understanding is that single quotes can't be used because they're special to the software. Could someone with more sophistication please change the inner quotes to something else. 123.243.105.115 (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * changed to single quotes, there's no problem with those in this usage. I don't like the fact that we are quoting something with MOS:SCAREQUOTES Meters (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ownership dates
How come the dates in the section "Ownership" don't follow in sequence? The bold and non-bold entries seem to indicate two separate and inconsistent versions of ownership. Could the person who made it like that please provide some explanation. 1.136.104.105 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question. I don't know who added them, but the bolded names are unsourced and/or only sourceable to non-WP:FRIND sources. So out they go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Size of ranch - 512 acres or 480?
The article says the ranch is approximately 512 acres. So does owner Brandon Fugal and the official Skinwalker Ranch website. The Uintah County property records indicate Fugal's Adamantium Real Estate LLC only owns seven parcels in the county. When you add them up the total is 480.19 acres. Fugal tweeted the following explanation for the discrepency:

This addition of land comes to about 32 acres. All of the seven parcels making up the ranch, when viewed on the county's parcel map are ordinary rectangles. There does not appear to be any officially recorded record of his purchase of the road into the property, making it a private road to keep the public out. The road may have increased the size of one or more of the lots as the road part was absorbed into it but the county assessor and recorder have not changed their records. There are a lot of articles out there with the two different figures, so I wanted to post this research here in case anyone wants to use Fugal's tweet as a source to explain the discrepancy (see Template:Cite tweet).  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 12:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe when Fugal says he "acquired the road right of way" he's using tricky real estate language to mean he didn't buy it but entered into a lease or other type of agreement with the county to block it off and take responsibility for maintenance. There's no way someone could buy a public road and take it private without a paper trail. It's common for film and TV productions to get permission to shut down roadways temporarily via a film permit, but permanently takes it to a higher level. I found a 2021 article where he once again artfully uses language to describe the ranch as a "five hundred- and twelve-acre assemblage"; so, if this Wiki article ever tries to portray the ranch as being fully owned by Fugal/Adamantium, or as one piece of property, we may need to note what the official records say, seven parcels 480.19 acres total.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 12:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ThanQ for your efforts - I've added a prominent note relating to the size, so any variation shouldn't be disputatious now that it is annotated. I've arranged this as "approach road(s)" as the image caption states "One entrance to the ranch". BTW, I can only get the Tweet - the official map times out and locks my computer, and the ABC4 is not available to England.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are the Uintah County online records available for the location known as Skinwalker Ranch. Documents such as deeds are not available online. You have to go in person to the Recorder's office or make a request and purchase a copy via email, or hire a title company. The Bureau of Land Management owns the split-estate subsurface mineral rights to 1.2 million acres of Utah land and 22.8 million acres overall in the state. I was unable to determine if Skinwalker Ranch is a split estate with the BLM or the indian reservation. The "USM" in the shorthand legal descriptions means Uintah Special Meridian, an Indian reservation reference. Except for the first Property Search link here, all the URLs as of this posting are http, so they may have accessibility issues with some browsers. Search for Adamantium Real Estate LLC or just Adamantium: Uintah County Property Search, County Assessor - Owner Search, Interactive Parcel Map. The total of the seven parcels is 480.19 acres. There may be some useful links here for referencing in the article someday.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * #1: 80 acres (Agricultural land on greenbelt).
 * #2: 162.23 acres (Greenbelt and homesite with secondary residence).
 * #3: 82.49 acres (Agricultural land on greenbelt).
 * #4: 30 acres (Agricultural land on greenbelt).
 * #5: 42.68 acres (Agricultural land on greenbelt).
 * #6: 42.79 acres (Agricultural land on greenbelt).
 * #7: 40 acres (Vacant land).
 * I just checked the Code of Ordinances for Uintah County, Utah, available online, and the word Adamantium does not appear anywhere in it, so however the 32-acre increase to Skinwalker Ranch came to be, they didn't pass a special law. Must be some type of unrecorded agreement. I don't intend to do a public record request or contact Fugal to solve this mystery, but any researcher who wants to dig deeper could.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Poor reference
While I certainly agree that there’s nothing supernatural about this place, Simon Whistler is hardly a citable resource. He’s a sensationalist and highly biased youtuber with a strong case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome and a host of followers built up banking on the false impression of scholarly authority gained over average Americans from his English accent. A stopped clock is not a reputable source.71.236.206.225 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Some editors regard the 'In popular culture' heading as a trivia-dump.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

My edit reverted
@LuckyLouie  Are you saying that the sentence

The award category designated Bigelow as "the funding organization that supported the most useless study of a supernatural, paranormal or occult".

is grammatical? You can't receive an award for "a supernatural" or "a paranormal" or "an occult", or all of them put together. A noun such as "event" or "claim" is missing. But the quote is an accurate representation of the original (even though it is abbreviated. The original in full is no better). So how do you indicate to the reader that the awkwardness does not come from the WP editor, other than by putting "sic"?

As for the link not working, I clicked the wrong link. I wanted to see the text of the original document, so I clicked the words "the original". It is misleading to present a dead link in the same format as a working one. If it said "the previous link" it would be clearer that it does not lead to the original text. 203.221.25.134 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * We have editorial policies you may not be familiar with. Typically, we don't grammatically correct direct quotations, but per WP:QUOTE, adding "sic" is probably OK. As for changing the way the the archive linking format works, you could bring that up at the Teahouse and see if they can help you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @LuckyLouie My complaint is certainly about an "imperfection" as mentioned in WP:QUOTE, so I feel justified in restoring the "sic". 203.221.25.134 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, no problem if you want to restore it. Thanks for using the talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Tailings. Maybe the 5 lines in the ground, are tailings from drilling or digging in the masa. Who ever did it wanted to hide the work. 2601:205:8000:9830:C404:9086:9498:2ECA (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

History Channel
There is LOT of material about it on this TV channel.

Can this TV station be used as a source? 😯🥰 Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that's not a reliable source, see WP:RSPHISTORY. JaggedHamster (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Drop in
drop in vortex with 1.6 GHz transmitter 2600:100A:B038:DDF2:0:F:3905:5101 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * What? 71.248.179.173 (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)